Notifications

As Donald Trump's presidency enters the back nine of its first year, critics are still railing against the prospect of his “big, beautiful wall” — especially since, by all appearances, he still seems determined to build it.

In order to make sure that individual cities did not try to circumvent the wall by shielding illegal immigrants, President Trump also announced that he planned to hold back any funding he could from “sanctuary cities.”

And although some chose to abandon sanctuary city status, others doubled down.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel called his city a “Trump-free” zone, and Governors Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Jerry Brown (D-CA) took it a step further, declaring their entire states to be “sanctuaries.”

The New York Times recently published an editorial detailing what it would mean for a state — specifically California — to be a “sanctuary state”:

For months, lawmakers in Sacramento have debated what it would mean for California to become a “sanctuary state,” with strict regulations over how much law enforcement agencies could do to help federal immigration authorities. On Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown and Kevin de León, the Democratic leader of the state Senate who introduced the legislation, reached an agreement that seemed to appease both supporters and critics.

The compromise bill prohibits law enforcement agents from asking about a person’s immigration status or participating in any program that uses them as immigration agents.

But then actor James Woods took it upon himself to share his own translation of the article's premise:

And Woods was not alone in his assessment:

Ouch.

Please note: This is a commentary piece. The views and opinions expressed within it are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of IJR.

View Comments(12 comments)
Puma(18 likes)Should arrest and charge with treason any and all politicians participating in this sanctuary BS!  Withdraw all federal funding from these so called sanctuary city/states whatever.  Let California stand by itself after an earthquake or other natural disaster.  "NOT MY PRESIDENT" & We're a "Sanctuary State" should be met with "NOT GONNA HELP!"  Never thought I'd see the day when American elected officials would put the wants/needs/dreams of ILLEGALS/CRIMINALS before those of law abiding U.S. Citizens.  Shameful and disgusting and repugnant!
Ann (14 likes)As a born and raised Calif gal, I am so disgusted in local government who condone harboring illegals. This state has been overrun by illegal people who do not help by paying taxes. A large majority of them work for cash, use our medical system for free, send their kids to schools and colleges at tax payer expense and send the bulk of their money to MXO. Not all of them are criminals AND if an illegal is arrested they need to be deported. Period. America has a process for immigrating and they are not above the law and need to follow it, just like others do. 
@D23571(10 likes)A cornerstone of America is that we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law.  Another is the right of states to govern themselves but not to the extent state laws violate federal laws or the U.S. Constitution.  What these states are doing are, in essence, is braking away from the Republic by defying federal law.Just think if a state were to say: "We want slaves, and we will create a sanctuary environment that protects slave owners."  Hmmm, why not?  Because it is against federal law and ammendents passed by the majority of states that prohibit such action. I chose that example for a reason:  Prior to the Civil War, democratic states and democrats wanted to do just that.   The Federal government said no, and went to war over it (and for several other reasons too, I know). This is no different.  States that defy law are practicing treason.  They must be held accountable.   And we should do nothing less than force compliance, unless of course, laws are changed in an appropriate and orderly manner.  Governers and other state officials that defy immigration law should be arrested, just as a governer would if they said we will protect slave owners.